tion, we are one.-What, then, is the precise point at is sue? It is simply this. Both parties hold the unity of God. But Trinitarians maintain that, according to the Scriptures, this unity is, in a way which is not explained, and which they do not therefore pretend to understand, consistent with personal distinction. Unitarians deny that any such distinction of persons is taught in the Scriptures. The point, therefore, which it behoves them to establish is, not the unity of God, but simply the inconsistency of this unity with the personal distinction for which Trinitarians contend; or, in other words, that this doctrine of personal distinction has no place in the word of God.-All argument and discussion that are not confined to this one point, are entirely irrelevant to the question.

As evidence of the unity of God is not evidence of Unitarianism, I shall pass by Mr. Yates's two chapters, " on "the evidence for this doctrine from the light of nature, and "from the testimony of the Scriptures," with a single remark:

In the latter of these chapters, he says, (page 58.) "The word God does not denote a collection of persons, or "a council of intelligent agents: it signifies simply one per"son, or intelligent agent. Consequently every text, which "affirms that there is but one God, implies that there is ❝ but one person in the Godhead." But is this argument? Is it not just the old style of petitio principii? Does not the question still recur, What is the kind of unity which such texts affirm? Is it unity involving distinction-or is it not?

and myself, will most satisfactorily appear from a comparison of our respective language." But whatever may be the "views we entertain, as to the extent of natural evidence "in support of the unity of the Godhead; there can be no “doubt, that this doctrine forms one of the first and funda"mental truths of divine revelation. It is, in many places ❝of the inspired volume, distinctly and plainly affirmed; and "it appears pervading the whole, as one of those great lead❝ing principles, to which it owes the peculiarity of its "general complexion, and to which all the subordinate 66 parts of the system bear a constant reference." Discourses, pages 9, 10.—“ Notwithstanding the proof of the unity "of God afforded by the harmonious correspondence of "parts in the material creation, it is probable that this "doctrine would have been unknown, or little regarded, if "it had not been taught to mankind by the clear and au"thoritative voice of divine revelation. In almost every "page of the Bible it shines with incomparable lustre. "To reveal, establish, and propagate this tenet, to which, ❝however sublime and rational, men have, in all ages, ❝evinced a strong disinclination, was the great end pro"posed to be accomplished by the inspiration of the He"brew prophets, and by the splendid series of miracles "recorded in the Old Testament. To promulgate the same 66 great truth among Heathen nations, and ultimately to ef"fect its universal reception in the world, appears to have "been one of the principal purposes which God designed ❝to answer by the mission of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Vindication, page 57.-Whatever difference might arise between us upon an explanation of the terms of the last sentence, it is obvious, that in the sentiment that the unity of God is an important truth, and a leading doctrine of revela

tion, we are one.-What, then, is the precise point at issue? It is simply this. Both parties hold the unity of God. But Trinitarians maintain that, according to the Scriptures, this unity is, in a way which is not explained, and which they do not therefore pretend to understand, consistent with personal distinction. Unitarians deny that any such distinction of persons is taught in the Scriptures. The point, therefore, which it behoves them to establish is, not the unity of God, but simply the inconsistency of this unity with the personal distinction for which Trinitarians contend; or, in other words, that this doctrine of personal distinction has no place in the word of God.-All argument and discussion that are not confined to this one point, are entirely irrelevant to the question.

As evidence of the unity of God is not evidence of Unitarianism, I shall pass by Mr. Yates's two chapters," on "the evidence for this doctrine from the light of nature, and ❝ from the testimony of the Scriptures," with a single remark:

In the latter of these chapters, he says, (page 58.) "The word God does not denote a collection of persons, or "a council of intelligent agents: it signifies simply one per❝son, or intelligent agent. Consequently every text, which "affirms that there is but one God, implies that there is ❝ but one person in the Godhead."-But is this argument? Is it not just the old style of petitio principii? Does not the question still recur, What is the kind of unity which such texts affirm? Is it unity involving distinction-or is it not? If it can be proved that, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, there is a distinction in the divine unity, then it will follow that, so far from Mr. Yates's statement being just, every text which affirms the divine unity must be interpreted, in consistency with this doctrine, as meaning that

A

God is one indeed-but one, according to the peculiar modification of unity which belongs to Deity:-a unity, as it should seem from his own word, different from that which can be predicated of any of his creatures, and of which the precise nature is by us incomprehensible. Supposing this were established (and it is just the point which it should have been Mr. Yates's business to disprove)-every text that affirms the unity of God will involve an affirmation of the Trinity; because, on this supposition, a unity involving a threefold personal distinction is THE unity which pertains to the Godhead. No other unity can belong to God, than that which does belong to him; and that which does belong to him must be essential to his nature. He cannot possibly be other than he is.

I pass on to the third chapter of Mr. Yates's Second Part, entitled "EVIDENCE THAT THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE "GOD.".

66

Mr. Yates here proceeds on the assumption of his having made out, to the satisfaction of the reader, the doctrine of his former chapter:-" Having thus shown," says he, “ from "the clear light of nature, confirmed by the ample testi"mony of revelation, that all created things were produced "by the power, and are directed by the providence, of one "Infinite Mind, or Person, I proceed to establish another "distinguishing article of the Unitarian creed, viz. that

this one person is the same, who is repeatedly called in "Scripture THE FATHER, and consequently that THE FATHER "IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD." (Pages 60, 61.)

Now, suppose it granted (and there are few Trinitarians, it is presumed, who will be disposed to question it) that the appellation "THE FATHER" is, in various instances, used, in the Scriptures, as a designation simply of THE DEITY,

THE GODHEAD, THE ONE SUPREME.. If Mr. Yates had previously established the point, that God is one, without personal distinction, then it would certainly have followed, that the Father, in all its occurrences, meant God in this, the Unitarian view of his nature. But until this point has been established, the mere employment of this appellation can be a proof of nothing;-because, when used as a designation of the ONE SUPREME, it may just as well signify the One Supreme, subsisting in three persons, as the One Supreme subsisting in one person:—that is, it may just as well mean GOD in the Trinitarian, as GOD in the Unitarian, view of his nature. In this view of the matter, Mr. Yates might have multiplied his hundred passages by another hundred, without having, after all, produced a single proof of his point. He would have proved abundantly, that "the Father" is an appellation of the One only God, the Supreme Deity; but he would not have proved at all, that in this One only God, the Supreme Deity, there existed no distinction of persons.

F

But further; in many, perhaps in by far the greater number, of the passages in which the appellation "the Father” occurs, it is an appellation of distinction from the Son; to whom there is either an expressed, or an obviously implied, reference. This is the case in a large proportion of Mr. Yates's hundred texts. To adduce such texts as proofs that the Father alone is God, to the exclusion of the Son, is the easiest no doubt, but hardly the most satisfactory way of settling the controversy-the way which we have found Mr. Yates so often adopting-that of taking for granted the thing to be proved. A text may be a proof that the Father is God, without being a proof at all that the Son is not God. But unless it be a proof of the latter position, it is nothing to the purpose;—it is a proof of what nobody disputes. Instances of the Father being an appellation of the Supreme Divinity,

Q q